3 ms·

The xenophobia remarks were probably more in relation to classifying it as a "Chinese problem" and the targeting of specific nationalities, instead of fully clo

by Klinky 7y ago

The xenophobia remarks were probably more in relation to classifying it as a "Chinese problem" and the targeting of specific nationalities, instead of fully closing the borders, as if this was going keep us in our bubble of protection, when the spread had probably already occurred, and was by then coming in through all ports of entry, not just Chinese people from China.

jerf 7y ago
'The xenophobia remarks were probably more in relation to classifying it as a "Chinese problem"' At the time, it was a "Chinese problem". It's hard to "close your borders to China" without being accused of "xenophobia" in the modern era. What's your/their concrete counterproposal for the time? Leave them open? That certainly appears to have been the implicit counterproposal being made by the accusers; what else could they possibly mean? In hindsight, how has that fared? Or perhaps close the borders with Brazil and other countries, just to avoid singling out China, even though at the time, the disease was only in China? The accusation of xenophobia can only float in an environment where the accusers aren't actually responsible for making concrete policy proposals. Once you have to manifest the accusation in concrete proposals, then you're playing the "are you going to be ahead or behind?" game just like everybody else, and will lose in one direction or the other, just like everybody else. (One of the privileges of being the minority party is the ability to take shots at the majority party without having to actually propose anything concrete that would allow counteranalysis. This seems to be a non-trivial component of how the parties tend to oscillate back & forth. I phrase it as the "minority party" precisely because it isn't an accusation I'm slinging at a specific party. I've seen the cycle several times now on both sides.)
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > At the time, it was a "Chinese problem". It's hard to "close your borders to China" without being accused of "xenophobia" in the modern era. What's your/their concrete counterproposal for the time? Leave them open? That certainly appears to have been the implicit counterproposal being made by the accusers; what else could they possibly mean? In hindsight, how has that fared? Most of the criticism I've seen covers two factors: 1. It only made perhaps a little dent, as it'd spread far past China already. Trump is dramatically exaggerating its effectiveness in an attempt to distract from how feckless the overall response was. 2. It was implemented in a rather silly fashion. Instead of actually banning travel from China, we permitted US citizens to come back with minimal screening to spread it here. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel-restrictions/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel...
  - smaryjerry 7y ago
    The US did actually slow the spread significantly. Look at when the first case appeared in each country. The time until the virus started spreading in US was weeks after other countries first cases.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      South Korea and the US had their first case on the same day. Compare their numbers now. The US is actually one of the least flattened curves. Orange line: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Epidemic_curve_COVID19_certain_countries.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Epidemic...
      - berryjerry 7y ago
        Look at the inflection point, South Korea's inflection was much sooner. Obviously population differences exist as well.
    - Klinky 7y ago
      How can you make that statement given the piss poor testing going on? The numbers are not trustworthy. Where are the drivethru testing centers, where anyone who wants a test can get one? Those were promised weeks ago. Tests are still being heavily rationed.
    - mnm1 7y ago
      Our first case was in January. The US acted too slowly and worse, they acted incompetently. The borders were not actually closed so we knowingly brought back infected people without testing and without quarantining them. That's not closing the borders, that's just incredibly negligent. Criminally negligent. You'd think the government would at least have some common sense and test/quarantine/track people coming back from China. Nope. And as of two to three weeks ago, it's still doing no checks of people returning here from Europe.
- Klinky 7y ago
  A lot of the inaction was actually on behalf of the markets. Fear of upsetting Wall Street played a bigger part in not closing off access to China than meanies complaining about xenophobia. Also probably presidential denial of it being an actual issue.

by Klinky 7y ago

jerf 7y ago

'The xenophobia remarks were probably more in relation to classifying it as a "Chinese problem"' At the time, it was a "Chinese problem". It's hard to "close your borders to China" without being accused of "xenophobia" in the modern era. What's your/their concrete counterproposal for the time? Leave them open? That certainly appears to have been the implicit counterproposal being made by the accusers; what else could they possibly mean? In hindsight, how has that fared? Or perhaps close the borders with Brazil and other countries, just to avoid singling out China, even though at the time, the disease was only in China? The accusation of xenophobia can only float in an environment where the accusers aren't actually responsible for making concrete policy proposals. Once you have to manifest the accusation in concrete proposals, then you're playing the "are you going to be ahead or behind?" game just like everybody else, and will lose in one direction or the other, just like everybody else. (One of the privileges of being the minority party is the ability to take shots at the majority party without having to actually propose anything concrete that would allow counteranalysis. This seems to be a non-trivial component of how the parties tend to oscillate back & forth. I phrase it as the "minority party" precisely because it isn't an accusation I'm slinging at a specific party. I've seen the cycle several times now on both sides.)

ceejayoz 7y ago
> At the time, it was a "Chinese problem". It's hard to "close your borders to China" without being accused of "xenophobia" in the modern era. What's your/their concrete counterproposal for the time? Leave them open? That certainly appears to have been the implicit counterproposal being made by the accusers; what else could they possibly mean? In hindsight, how has that fared? Most of the criticism I've seen covers two factors: 1. It only made perhaps a little dent, as it'd spread far past China already. Trump is dramatically exaggerating its effectiveness in an attempt to distract from how feckless the overall response was. 2. It was implemented in a rather silly fashion. Instead of actually banning travel from China, we permitted US citizens to come back with minimal screening to spread it here. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel-restrictions/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel...
- smaryjerry 7y ago
  The US did actually slow the spread significantly. Look at when the first case appeared in each country. The time until the virus started spreading in US was weeks after other countries first cases.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    South Korea and the US had their first case on the same day. Compare their numbers now. The US is actually one of the least flattened curves. Orange line: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Epidemic_curve_COVID19_certain_countries.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Epidemic...
    - berryjerry 7y ago
      Look at the inflection point, South Korea's inflection was much sooner. Obviously population differences exist as well.
  - Klinky 7y ago
    How can you make that statement given the piss poor testing going on? The numbers are not trustworthy. Where are the drivethru testing centers, where anyone who wants a test can get one? Those were promised weeks ago. Tests are still being heavily rationed.
  - mnm1 7y ago
    Our first case was in January. The US acted too slowly and worse, they acted incompetently. The borders were not actually closed so we knowingly brought back infected people without testing and without quarantining them. That's not closing the borders, that's just incredibly negligent. Criminally negligent. You'd think the government would at least have some common sense and test/quarantine/track people coming back from China. Nope. And as of two to three weeks ago, it's still doing no checks of people returning here from Europe.
Klinky 7y ago
A lot of the inaction was actually on behalf of the markets. Fear of upsetting Wall Street played a bigger part in not closing off access to China than meanies complaining about xenophobia. Also probably presidential denial of it being an actual issue.